December 5, 2023
Biden Launches “Desperate Gambit” To End Ukraine War Before CIA Ends Him
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A compelling new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting President Putin declaring: “Russia, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, will continue to contribute to the settlement of acute regional and global problems, consistently defend approaches to ensure equal and indivisible security, to form a fair system of international economic relations, free from unfair competition, unilateral sanctions and politically motivated restrictions”, says this declaration was joined by top Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov factually telling reporters: “President Putin has repeatedly stated that achieving our goals in the conflict with Kiev is our top priority…And we would prefer to do that through political and diplomatic means…We are still ready for negotiations…Kiev itself had derailed the talks with Moscow that were held in the Spring of 2022…Ukrainian officials have themselves admitted that it was done on the orders of the United Kingdom”.
Instead of seeking negotiations before his nation is completely obliterated, this report notes, socialist Western colonial puppet leader Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky will address United States Senators at a classified briefing today via a secure video conference feed, about which it was reported: “Zelensky will brief senators on the state of the war in Ukraine and the need for another round of military aid a day before the Senate is scheduled to vote on proceeding to the legislative vehicle for a $106 billion emergency foreign aid package that includes more than $61 billion for Ukraine”—and last evening, top socialist Democrat Party lawmaker Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer posted the notice: “The administration has invited President Zelensky to address senators as part of our classified briefing tomorrow so we can hear directly from him precisely what’s at stake in this vote”.
Prior to hearing what puppet leader President Zelensky has to say, this report continues, top Republican Party lawmaker Senator Ron Johnson assessed: “The war between Russia and Ukraine is not a fair fight…The only way this war ends is in a negotiated settlement…We’re not gonna like the result…Russia will not lose this war”—an assessment joined by the article “Clock Ticks Down On Ukraine Aid As Senate Border Talks Falter”, wherein it revealed: “Time is running short for lawmakers to provide aid to Ukraine as talks among Senate negotiators over a possible border security package are faltering…Republicans say taking action on the border is necessary to unlock money for Kyiv, and the White House said Monday it would run out of money for Ukraine by the end of the year without congressional action…But talks broke down in recent days as negotiators struggled to advance the ball”—a revelation quickly joined by top Republican Party lawmaker House Speaker Mike Johnson declaring: “The Biden Administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference’s legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers…Meanwhile, the Administration is continually ignoring the catastrophe at our own border…House Republicans have resolved that any national security supplemental package must begin with our own border…We believe both issues can be agreed upon if Senate Democrats and the White House will negotiate reasonably”.
Joining NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warning the socialist Western colonial powers: “Be prepared for bad news from Ukraine”, this report details, today it was shockingly reported: “President Zelensky communicates with some commanders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, avoiding Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi and preventing him from holding overall command of the army”—and as puppet leader President Zelensky battles to the death against his top military commander General Zaluzhnyi, the hugely popular Kyiv Mayor Vitaly Klichko picked a side with his just issued scathing proclamation: “General Zaluzhnyi told the truth…Sometimes people don’t want to hear it…Of course we can euphorically lie to our people and our partners…But you can’t do that forever…Some of our politicians have wrongly criticized Zaluzhnyi for his honesty…I stand with him”.
Over the past 24 hours, this report notes, the leftist Washington Post, that’s best known for being “the official mouthpiece of the CIA”, released its two-article series “Miscalculations, Divisions Marked Offensive Planning By U.S., Ukraine” and “In Ukraine, A War Of Incremental Gains As Counteroffensive Stalls”, about which the anonymous American military and intelligence experts at the Moon of Alabama organization assessed in their just released document “The War In Ukraine Is Done”:
The Washington Post has produced a long, two part piece, about the failed ‘counter-offensive‘ in Ukraine. It dispenses equal blame on the U.S. and British planning of the whole mess and the Ukrainian execution of it.
The bullet points from the first part:
Miscalculations, divisions marked offensive planning by U.S., Ukraine
Ukrainian, U.S. and British military officers held eight major tabletop war games to build a campaign plan. But Washington miscalculated the extent to which Ukraine’s forces could be transformed into a Western-style fighting force in a short period — especially without giving Kyiv air power integral to modern militaries.
U.S. and Ukrainian officials sharply disagreed at times over strategy, tactics and timing. The Pentagon wanted the assault to begin in mid-April to prevent Russia from continuing to strengthen its lines. The Ukrainians hesitated, insisting they weren’t ready without additional weapons and training.
U.S. military officials were confident that a mechanized frontal attack on Russian lines was feasible with the troops and weapons that Ukraine had. The simulations concluded that Kyiv’s forces, in the best case, could reach the Sea of Azov and cut off Russian troops in the south in 60 to 90 days.
The United States advocated a focused assault along that southern axis, but Ukraine’s leadership believed its forces had to attack at three distinct points along the 600-mile front, southward toward both Melitopol and Berdyansk on the Sea of Azov and east toward the embattled city of Bakhmut.
The U.S. intelligence community had a more downbeat view than the U.S. military, assessing that the offensive had only a 50-50 chance of success given the stout, multilayered defenses Russia had built up over the winter and spring.
Many in Ukraine and the West underestimated Russia’s ability to rebound from battlefield disasters and exploit its perennial strengths: manpower, mines and a willingness to sacrifice lives on a scale that few other countries can countenance.
As the expected launch of the offensive approached, Ukrainian military officials feared they would suffer catastrophic losses — while American officials believed the toll would ultimately be higher without a decisive assault.
And from the second part:
In Ukraine, a war of incremental gains as counteroffensive stalls
Key findings from reporting on the campaign include:
Seventy percent of troops in one of the brigades leading the counteroffensive, and equipped with the newest Western weapons, entered battle with no combat experience.
Ukraine’s setbacks on the battlefield led to rifts with the United States over how best to cut through deep Russian defenses.
The commander of U.S. forces in Europe couldn’t get in touch with Ukraine’s top commander for weeks in the early part of the campaign amid tension over the American’s second-guessing of battlefield decisions.
Each side blamed the other for mistakes or miscalculations. U.S. military officials concluded that Ukraine had fallen short in basic military tactics, including the use of ground reconnaissance to understand the density of minefields. Ukrainian officials said the Americans didn’t seem to comprehend how attack drones and other technology had transformed the battlefield.
In all, Ukraine has retaken only about 200 square miles of territory, at a cost of thousands of dead and wounded and billions in Western military aid in 2023 alone.
All those points played a role.
My personal ones:
Both, the Ukraine and its supporters, systematically underestimated Russian capabilities. (And still do.)
Satellite reconnaissance showed Russian defense preparations on the level of the Battle of Kursk. There the German Wehrmacht, after way too long preparations, failed to break the Russian lines. The unlearned lesson from 1943: When you see defense lines like these, try something else.
Battle simulations and table top war games have a ‘moral factor‘ input for each side. Setting your sides’ factor to 10 and the enemy’s factor to 0, as the U.S. and UK obviously did, will let you win every time – but has no relation to reality.
Air support would not have helped. Russian air defenses are too strong to counter it.
The decision to use barely trained, ‘green‘ brigades without any fighting experience was a serious error.
Not to use smoke grenades and, in general, means of deception, was not reasonable at all.
To have half of the new troops, the more experienced part, fight Zelenski’s already lost battle for Bakhmut, was a major political mistake.
All together made sure that the so called ‘counter-offensive‘ never had a chance to take off. The bickering now is just an attempt to put the blame for the failure onto the other side of the table.
The Ukrainian General Zaluzny has learned from the battle. He now puts up somewhat realistic numbers to let the U.S. understand how small its chances to win really are:
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was informed during a visit to Kyiv that Ukraine needed 17 million rounds of ammunition and that US$ 350-400 billion worth of assets and personnel would be required to liberate the country.
Quote from a senior Defence Forces official: “Austin was told 17 million rounds of ammunition were needed. He was stunned, to put it mildly, because you wouldn’t be able to collect that many rounds in the whole world“.
The Ukrainian army does not have the ten thousands of barrels required to fire 17 million rounds. Nor has it the men to feed those imaginary guns.
Zaluzny obviously thinks that the war is lost and done with. And that it is time for politics that pursue peace:
In addition, according to a source, Austin also said Zaluzhnyi had complained privately to American generals about interference from the President’s Office: “Austin told us privately that Zaluzhnyi was always complaining to his generals about the President’s Office and how it obstructed him. Well, obviously the president learned about those conversations too. And that isn’t conducive to trust“.
However, the President’s Office is inclined to believe that Zaluzhnyi’s dismissal would facilitate his political career.
It is high time for the Biden administration to wrap this whole thing up. Do the usual thing: declare victory, leave and forget-about-it.
With it not known if Supreme Socialist Leader Joe Biden will end the failed proxy war against Russia using his corrupt puppet state Ukraine before the CIA ends him, this report concludes, world-renowned Russian historian Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D., in his just released open letter “Seymour Hersh, Anatol Lieven And The Desperate DC Gambit To End Hostilites In Ukraine While Claiming ‘Victory’”, assessed:
Several days ago, the renowned, Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published on his substack.com account an article entitled “General to General. A potential peace is being negotiated in Ukraine by military leaders”.
To be specific, Hersh said that secret talks about a possible peace are presently being conducted by Ukraine’s military commander-in-chief General Valery Zaluzhny and Russia’s highest military officer Valery Gerasimov.
The main attention grabbing paragraph in the article was the following:
“The driving force of those talks has not been Washington or Moscow, or Biden or Putin, but instead the two high-ranking generals who run the war, Valery Gerasimov of Russia and Valery Zaluzhny of Ukraine”.
The next most sensational point in the article was that part of the settlement foresees Russian acceptance of Ukraine joining NATO on condition that NATO formally commits ‘not to place NATO troops on Ukrainian soil’ or to put offensive weapons in Ukraine.
And the final key element in the settlement that would reward Russia for its acquiescence on NATO membership would be Ukraine’s recognition of Crimea as irrevocably Russian and the holding of a referendum in the Donbas and Novorossiya (Zaporozhie and Kherson) oblasts that were liberated by Russia and then joined the Russian Federation, a measure which in effect would be a fig-leaf for formal settlement of the fate of these territories as Russian once and for all.
This article has been widely commented upon in anti-establishment media outlets, which for the most part find Hersh’s revelations to be so incredible as to be unworthy of serious discussion. In a review article carried by the unofficial Chinese journal Asia Times, Stephen Bryen suggests that ‘Hersh has been sold a bill of goods, or duped…’ See “Is Hersh story on secret Ukraine peace talks true?”
In what follows, I will consider
1. why Seymour Hersh was the chosen vehicle of American intelligence operatives for bringing this remarkable story to the broad American and Western publics.
2. how elements in the story have been appearing in the writings of other more consciously (com)pliant journalists in recent weeks as a face saving ‘exit ramp’ from the failed Ukrainian adventure is being prepared by the White House
3. what from among the incredible elements exposed by Hersh may actually have some factual basis and give us a foretaste of the end-game in Ukraine as it is currently envisioned in Washington, and maybe even in Moscow
After passing through a number of years in relative obscurity, after being blacklisted by all U.S. mainstream media outlets, Seymour Hersh emerged center-stage this past February when he published on his substack account a lengthy article which set out in great detail how the bombing of the Nordstream I pipeline was planned and carried out under instructions from the White House and Biden’s close advisers.
Though Washington formally denied any involvement in what was arguably the biggest act of state terrorism in history, and though Germany and other interested states in Europe have since done their utmost to divert attention to a cock-and-bull story of Ukrainian responsibility for the bombing of Nord Stream I, Hersh’s account was an expose worthy of the journalistic exploits that once won him the Pulitzer and it remains highly persuasive.
Of course, at age 86 Hersh did not go out and track down the story he published in February. It was brought to him on a silver platter from unidentified sources, i.e. actors within the Administration whose motives remain unclear.
The unidentified sources who have now brought the story of secret negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian generals to end the war could count on Hersh’s profound ignorance of Russia and his desire to again win plaudits for a ‘scoop’.
Here the motives of the ‘leakers’ are not hard to find: Hersh was indeed being duped in an operation to condition Western publics for an end to the Ukraine war under conditions that present defeat as victory.
Let me be perfectly clear: the notion that Russia’s General Gerasimov could on his own volition enter into talks with his Ukrainian opposite number to end the hostilities is a notion that can be entertained only by someone who fails to comprehend what the ‘vertical of power’ in Russia is all about.
At the same time, presumably to illustrate the high standing of Gerasimov, Hersh has placed at the very start of his article a photo of Putin and Gerasimov seated face to face under which we read the following caption:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting with General Valery Gerasimov at the headquarters of the Russian armed forces in Rostov-on-Don in October”
This photo is more interesting than Hersh and most readers of his article could imagine. Indeed, this very meeting in October was given video coverage on prime time Russian television on the day it occurred.
We saw how Putin arrived by car well after dark following a flight to the Rostov headquarters by helicopter, how he shook hands with Gerasimov and with Defense Minister Shoigu who was also present; then we were shown how Putin departed. There was not a word about the content of these top level talks. Only a couple of days later in a dedicated television news segment did we learn that Russia had just carried out a full scale test of the battle readiness of all three arms of its strategic nuclear triad, which may be described as a direct message to Washington to proceed with great care in the Ukraine war and to think twice before authorizing any further escalation of its deliveries to Kiev of advanced offensive weapons.
A similar news report on Russian state television less than two weeks ago showed Putin, Gerasimov and Shoigu holding talks in secret at the Rostov-on-Don military headquarters. However, in the time since then no extraordinary event in the war or in overall military activities that could be matched with the talks in Rostov. I believe that Putin’s preparing Gerasimov for a meeting with Zaluzhny would fit that description.
At the same time, it is fantasy to think that Ukraine’s general Zaluzhny would risk accusations of treason if he were on his own, acting out of ambition or out of motives to save what is left of the Ukrainian armed forces, to defy President Zelensky and the standing decree prohibiting talks with the Russians so long as Putin remains in power.
To suggest that he was doing so because he received backing from Washington as the Americans seek to bypass the obstinate or delusional Zelensky and find an escape path from the Ukrainian disaster is also to misunderstand how things work even in Ukraine, however dysfunctional the ruling elites may appear to be.
Let us instead, turn things around: Zaluzhny would assume the role of savior of the nation only at the urging and with ironclad guarantees of protection coming from the Biden administration.
The elements of a possible peace set out in the Hersh article have been circulating for weeks now in the publications and television appearances of mainstream U.S. journalists and academics. There are numerous variations in the combinations of compromises that both Ukrainian and Russian sides are called upon to make according to which academic or pundit is penning any given article.
Let us pause for a moment to look at what one widely read academic / journalist is saying. I have in mind Anatol Lieven and his latest article published on responsiblestatecraft.org: “Biden’s Role In Ukraine Peace Is Clear Now”.
In popular estimation, Lieven is a middle of the road expert with great depth of experience reporting on Russia. In my estimation, he is a chameleon who speaks out of both sides of his mouth to win over the maximum number of fans. Lieven wallows in the celebrity he enjoys while saying what the bosses in the Administration want him to say.
Going back more than a year, Lieven was especially sympathetic to the Ukrainian side in the war, never more so than when he returned from a visit to Ukraine during which he landed in a hospital and soaked up the anti-Russian vitriol of his fellow patients. He was a longtime defender of Ukrainian resilience and moral strength in standing up to the Russian bully. He was a seeming believer in ultimate Ukrainian victory. Now he has shifted to a position acknowledging the failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive and the hopelessness of the Ukrainian military prospects.
His message today has changed 180 degrees and yet he seeks to find a way to present defeat as victory, in keeping with the boys in the White House staff. I quote at length:
A ceasefire and negotiations for a peace settlement are therefore becoming more and more necessary for Ukraine. Indeed, if the fighting stopped along the existing battle lines, more than 80 percent of Ukraine would be fully independent of (and bitterly hostile to) Russia and free to do its best to move towards membership of the European Union.
Given the Kremlin’s original aims when it launched the invasion last year, and of the history of Russia’s domination of Ukraine over the past 300 years, this would be not a Ukrainian defeat, but, on the contrary, a tremendous Ukrainian victory. If, on the other hand, the war continues indefinitely, there is a real possibility that Ukrainian resistance may collapse, whether through the exhaustion of its manpower or because Russia’s additional forces allow it to reopen the fronts in northern Ukraine that it pulled back from last year and that Ukraine lacks the troops to defend.
Following from this, Lieven argues for a settlement now, well in advance of the U.S. elections, when a Ukrainian collapse would be very damaging for any Democratic candidate.
He says that to bring the Russians around, Washington will have to make major concessions to the fundamental Russian demands from before the start of the war:
[Russia] will need to be assured that Washington is prepared to discuss seriously a final settlement involving neutrality for Ukraine (of course, including international security guarantees), mutual force limitations in Europe, the lifting of sanctions, and some form of inclusive European security architecture to reduce the danger of more wars in the future.
Lieven hopes that the Global South and China, in particular, can be induced “to issue a strong collective call for a ceasefire and peace talks”.
The elements in the concessions to Russia that Lieven proposes are somewhat vague. They are considerably more generous than what Seymour Hersh is proposing.
Both gentlemen and dozens of their peers are being encouraged by the policy formulators in the Administration to prepare the Russians to enter into talks and to prepare the American and European publics for an end to the war that is a defeat dressed up as a victory.
As I intimated above, it is entirely possible that there have been direct talks about ending the war between Gerasimov and Zaluzhny in the past couple of weeks, though neither would be an independent actor as Hersh mistakenly believes.
I will go one step further and say that it is entirely possible that the Russian side suggested that it could accept Ukraine’s entry into NATO if there was a public commitment never to post NATO forces on Ukrainian territory and not to deliver offensive weapons to Ukraine. Such things can be monitored and if there are violations they can lead directly to revocation of the agreement before any harm is done to Russian security interests.
The possible advantage to the Russian side would be to offer the Americans a face-saving exit ramp, thereby ending any possibility of dangerous escalation of American – NATO involvement on the ground should the Ukrainian forces collapse.
Vladimir Putin has been very cautious in conducting this war precisely because the Russians have a decidedly low opinion of the professionalism, and at times even of the sanity of their American counterparts.
Putin is strong enough in his entourage of elites and in the broad Russian public to make a persuasive case for any settlement that ensures Russian security interests are served and that the sacrifices in men and fortune that this war has cost will be justified by the outcome.
Even in the less attractive peace terms set out by Hersh, the positive results for Russia would be the definitive liberation of most of the Russian speaking territories of Ukraine from rule by Kiev and their incorporation into the Russian Federation, the de facto demilitarization of Ukraine given its losses on the order of one million men dead or incapacitated, and the confidence that Ukraine can no longer be used as an advance attack platform of NATO against his country.
[Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
December 5, 2023 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.